June 1, 2016

The full House voted Wednesday to conference with
the Senate to reconcile differences between the separate House and Senate
energy bills. The members approved replacing the Senate's more bipartisan Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016 (S. 2012) with
the House's more controversial North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of
2015 (H.R. 8).

The vote means that backroom staff negotiations will
continue in the search for common ground and that a formal House/Senate energy
bill conference is expected to convene in early June.

Calling for a yea vote, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, said
Wednesday afternoon on the House floor that the vote would approve replacing
the Senate energy bill with the House's “comprehensive compilation of energy
legislation that has already passed the House” over the past year and a half.

Burgess explained that with a yea vote, the two chambers can
begin “to conference the differences in the two bills, a further step in the
regular order of this bill becoming a law.” Indicating the broad scope of the
House bill, he said “The legislation will benefit Americans across the country,
modernizing our energy infrastructure, expediting and improving forest
management, providing for greater opportunities on federal lands for hunting,
fishing, shooting, and prioritizing science research using federal taxpayer
dollars.”

The legislation is also urgently needed, Burgess said,
because “uncertainty due to terrorism and unfriendly and unstable regimes in
the Middle East threaten American access to reliable sources of energy.” He
said the House energy bill is designed to shift the U.S. away from relying on
foreign energy sources in order to develop America's own resources to “fully
focus on becoming energy secure.”

Burgess wrapped up his pitch for passage by promising that
“Members can feel comfortable that a wide array of opinions and positions are
represented in the legislation.”

One sign that not all members are comfortable with the House
bill is that the final vote on moving ahead on energy legislation was 242 to
171. Just two Democrats, Jim Costa of California and Collin Peterson of
Minnesota, joined 240 Republicans in support.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., delivered further proof that
while the Senate passed its energy bill in April with solid bipartisan support,
the House bill passed last year is seen as far more partisan.

In Wednesday's debate, Slaughter urged members to reject the
House energy bill.

“The House proposal encourages an outdated energy policy
that favors fossil fuels above the clean and renewable energy sources and it
seeks to roll back important environmental protections,” Slaughter said.
Promising that “Democrats will fight to protect the environment and precious
natural resources,” she charged that the House energy bill “locks in fossil
fuel consumption for years” and “puts up barriers to the integration of
critical renewable energy technologies, all while rolling back energy
efficiency standards.”

In the end, it was Burgess' promises rather than Slaughter's
warnings that carried the day.

The next step, the House/Senate conference, is likely to be
more challenging. That's because the White House threatened to veto H.R. 8 as
it was passed last year. Now the amended version approved by the House
Wednesday includes additional provisions such as the America
Competes Act, H.R. 1806, and the Western
Water and American Food Security Act, H.R. 2898, which have also
triggered veto threats.

As for the possibility that the House might back down in
conference to accept at least some of the Senate energy bill's provisions, the
conservative Heritage Action policy
group has warned that “any final conference product that emerges should advance
conservative priorities and conservative policy.” More specifically, Heritage
Action has warned that it will oppose and potentially count as a key vote any
vote on a “conference product that includes” Senate provisions such as various
programs supporting renewable energy or “permanent extension of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.”